RAF not helping co-habiting couples

danlojo

... and fraudulent claims are causing our guys /girls to have not enough money for helping them stay safe with better equipment when we go to war..........:(

peteuk

no1gymbunny wrote: »

relocation allowance (which, I understand is £1k plus removals).

My understanding of DA is that is based on family size and distance moved.

For instance as I have 2 children of school age I am afforded move in DA as I will be buying new school uniform for them to enter a new school.

My last Da was just over 1K and removals was sorted, they even turned up, packed moved items and unpacked about 50% of my stuff for me. (All over a 48 hour period)

Apples2

danlojo wrote: »

... and fraudulent claims are causing our guys /girls to have not enough money for helping them stay safe with better equipment when we go to war..........:(

Completely different Pot of money.

A reduction in one pot, doesn't mean an increase in another.

This is why we see so many building works going on in Jan/Feb - spend the money or lose it next year. Doesn't automatically drop into the UOR pot.

fanbosun

Apples2 wrote: »

Completely different Pot of money.

.

Not judging here but regardless of which pot the disturbance allowance comes out of, possible fraud is still possible fraud. Anyone contemplating doing something which might be interpreted as such really needs to consider the consequences for his/her career and/or pension. Earlier in my career I recall a senior being CM'd for submiting a false travel claim which resulted in discharge with financial and other consequences that far exceeded the amount claimed for. Strike one career. Was it worth it?

Marker_2

The whole system is messed up when it comes to Married and Unmarried couples.

Unmarried couples can stay together for a long time, or they can break up after a short time.
Married couples can stay together for a long time, or they can break up after a short time.

The housing for Service personnel and their families should be based on how long they have been together for, married or not (which can be easily proven), say 2 or 3 years as a minimum. A family is not complete solely based on what man-made document they have signed.

You get the age old argument that says married couples are more "committed" to eachother. An unmarried couple of 10 years are less committed than a couple who have been together 4 months 3 of those being married. I don't think so!

Don't get me wrong, it is nice to be married, and it does feel like a sign of commitment to a partnership, but with the ever increasing divorce rate shadowing marriage, it doesnt have the same appeal and values as it once did.

veggie_patch

Hi

I am now longer involved in the forces - though I worked for them for anumber of years

The age old debate of who gets what and how still reigns and it does seem unfair that if you arent married but are living with your partner you dont qualify for the maximum movement allowance.

Anyway what I can say in my experience is that those couples that this effects often find that the unit involved understand and are very helpful and if they cannot supply cash can supply support and help etc. Ask them first for assistance - you might be surprised by their postive response.

VP

Fergie76

gt568 wrote: »

It is in black and white in the 754.

Is it? What's the Reference?

Last time I looked it was in the JSP 752.

martinbuckley

Marker wrote: »

The whole system is messed up when it comes to Married and Unmarried couples.

Unmarried couples can stay together for a long time, or they can break up after a short time.
Married couples can stay together for a long time, or they can break up after a short time.

The housing for Service personnel and their families should be based on how long they have been together for, married or not (which can be easily proven), say 2 or 3 years as a minimum. A family is not complete solely based on what man-made document they have signed.

You get the age old argument that says married couples are more "committed" to eachother. An unmarried couple of 10 years are less committed than a couple who have been together 4 months 3 of those being married. I don't think so!

Don't get me wrong, it is nice to be married, and it does feel like a sign of commitment to a partnership, but with the ever increasing divorce rate shadowing marriage, it doesnt have the same appeal and values as it once did.

Unfortunately, you have to draw a line otherwise you would move to a scenario where every squaddie who pulled a local on a Thursday night wanting a house by the following Monday! If people are committed to their relationship and want a house provided then they will get married.

Marker_2

I know you have to draw a line somewhere, but what is stopping a young squaddie marrying his Thursday night shag a few weeks/months later.

Ive always felt this way, more so when they changed the name of married quarters or Service Family Accommodation. A family comes in all shapes and sizes and this day and age they dont nessearily have to be married.

I unfortunatly know a girl who has a child by some random, met a squaddie, was only with him 4 weeks before they decided to get married, 2 months later and she is now in Germany. Thats a total of 3 months she was with him before she moved overseas. There is just so uch wrong in that scenario. Theres so many more like her. They may last the distance, they may not. But the entire 3 month courtship being more important than someone elses 5 year courtship, just because of the M word is so wrong.

None of this will change anytime soon, I think they are to scared to make changes, but something should be done to make sure the right "Familys" are occupying SFA.

Fergie76

Marker wrote: »

I know you have to draw a line somewhere, but what is stopping a young squaddie marrying his Thursday night shag a few weeks/months later.

Absolutely nothing. But if a young Pongo is stupid enough to risk his pension by marrying some slapper he barely knows, then he deserves everything he gets.

By the way, what town are theses slappers in? Purely so I know to avoid that town, you know!

Marker wrote: »

Ive always felt this way, more so when they changed the name of married quarters or Service Family Accommodation. A family comes in all shapes and sizes and this day and age they dont nessearily have to be married.

I think the name change was more to accommodate the Civil Partnerships than anything else.

Marker wrote: »

I unfortunatly know a girl who has a child by some random, met a squaddie, was only with him 4 weeks before they decided to get married, 2 months later and she is now in Germany. Thats a total of 3 months she was with him before she moved overseas. There is just so uch wrong in that scenario. Theres so many more like her. They may last the distance, they may not. But the entire 3 month courtship being more important than someone elses 5 year courtship, just because of the M word is so wrong.

None of this will change anytime soon, I think they are to scared to make changes, but something should be done to make sure the right "Familys" are occupying SFA.

Unfortunately, that is down the bloke for being so stupid.

If the unmarried couple want a SFA, then they know the rules, they have a choice, get married and get a quarter or stay 'single' and rent/buy privately.